DOCSLIB.ORG

The Question of Assistance to the Voter

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Question of Assistance to the Voter Saint Louis University School of Law Scholarship Commons All Faculty Scholarship 2011 How Do You Spell M-U-R-K-O-W-S-K-I? Part I: The Question of Assistance to the Voter Chad Flanders Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/faculty Part of the Election Law Commons, and the Law and Politics Commons No. 2011 - 18 How Do You Spell M-U-R-K-O-W-S-K-I? Part I: The Question of Assistance to the Voter Chad Flanders Alaska L. Rev. (Forthcoming, 2011) This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network electronic library at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1718707 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1718707 FLANDERS_FINAL_2 5/6/2011 2:28:53 PM HOW DO YOU SPELL M-U-R-K-O-W-S-K-I? PART I: THE QUESTION OF ASSISTANCE TO THE VOTER CHAD FLANDERS* “They tell us this is impossible, you cannot do it, Alaskans can’t figure out how to fill in an oval and spell M-U-R-K-O-W-S-K- I?” —Sen. Lisa Murkowski1 ABSTRACT The 2010 Alaska Senate race is now over, ending amid considerable legal controversy. After losing the Republican primary to Tea Party- backed candidate Joe Miller, Senator Lisa Murkowski staged a write- in candidacy and, bucking history, won the general election. Much attention has been paid to Miller’s post-election challenges to Murkowski write-in ballots, claims which have been resolved in Murkowski’s favor. Still, a major election law question emerged prior to the election: to what extent can poll workers assist voters who need help to vote for a write-in candidate? After Murkowski declared her * Assistant Professor of Law, Saint Louis University School of Law and former law clerk to Justice Warren Matthews, Alaska Supreme Court, 2007–2008. Member, Alaska Bar. Thanks to Kirsten Nussbaumer, Efthimi Parasides, Molly Walker-Wilson, Joey Fishkin, Christopher Bradley, Hanah Volokh and Will Baude for comments and conversations on an earlier draft. I also thank David Kullman for his usual superlative assistance in tracking down materials. Comments welcome: e-mail to [email protected]. Part II of this essay will examine the post-election litigation between Joe Miller and Lisa Murkowski. 1. Sean Cockerham & Erika Bolstad, Murkowski Says ‘Let’s Make History’, ANCHORAGE DAILY NEWS, Sept. 18, 2010, http://www.adn.com/ 2010/09/17/1459578/murkowski-expected-to-say-yes.html. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1718707 FLANDERS_FINAL_2 5/6/2011 2:28:53 PM 2 ALASKA LAW REVIEW [28:1 write-in candidacy, the Alaska Division of Elections distributed a list of eligible write-in candidates to polling places, in case voters had questions about how to spell the name of a write-in candidate. Both parties, sensing this would benefit Murkowski, cried foul and challenged the new policy in Alaska state court. They claimed that the Division violated its own regulations, which prohibited the distribution of “information” about write-in candidates at polling places. This article examines four issues about voter assistance in the Murkowski litigation: (1) how to interpret statutes and regulations regarding voter assistance; (2) what kind of assistance is permissible and what kind is not; (3) whether the state can legitimately limit the ability of voters to write in the name of a candidate; and (4) how decisions on assistance to voters before the election should affect a court’s disposition on cases that arise after the election. INTRODUCTION Lisa Murkowski’s write-in candidacy for re-election as Alaska’s Senator has finally succeeded.2 Early on, however, success was far from guaranteed. Faced with anti-incumbent sentiment and an early Tea Party surge, Murkowski lost the Republican primary to Joe Miller. Her candidacy was declared dead, and Murkowski herself appeared ready to throw in the towel.3 Even when she campaigned as a write-in candidate there were difficulties beyond simply fighting long odds to become the first successful write-in Senate candidate since Strom Thurmond.4 There was, more specifically to Ms. Murkowski, the problem of whether people would be able to successfully spell her name correctly on the ballot.5 That problem—and the Alaska Election Division’s response to it— made up the first round of legal wrangling in the Alaska Senatorial 2. Miller Concedes Loss to Murkowski, CBSNEWS.COM, Dec. 31, 2010, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/31/politics/main7201772.shtml. The final blow was dealt in Federal District Court, which dismissed all of Miller’s remaining claims against the State of Alaska. See Miller v. Treadwell, 736 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (D. Alaska 2010) (lifting stay, resolving pending motions, and dismissing case).The Alaska Supreme Court ruled on Miller’s post-election claims in Miller v. Treadwell, 245 P.3d 867 (Alaska 2010). 3. Michael Carey, Murkowski Write-In Run Bucks History, ANCHORAGE DAILY NEWS, Sept. 29, 2010, http://www.adn.com/2010/09/29/1478287/murkowski- write-in-run-bucks-history.html (recounting the history of write-in candidacies in Alaska, all of which were unsuccessful). 4. Id. 5. Cockerham & Bolstad, supra note 1. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1718707 FLANDERS_FINAL_2 5/6/2011 2:28:53 PM 2011 VOTER ASSISTANCE SYMPOSIUM 3 contest.6 The Alaska Election Division, mindful that an unusually high number of people would be voting write-in, sought to provide polling places a list of all eligible write-in candidates, including Lisa Murkowski.7 The list, presumably, would be provided (in some fashion) to voters confused about how to spell the names of candidates. The Alaska Democratic Party filed suit (later joined by the Alaska Republican party) seeking to block use of the list.8 Both parties saw the move by the Division as an obvious help to the Murkowski campaign. A state superior court held in favor of the Democratic Party.9 But in late October, a per curiam decision by the Alaska Supreme Court reversed, allowing the Division to use the lists in limited circumstances.10 The questions presented by the pre-election lawsuits raise issues of enduring importance to election law, both in Alaska and throughout the United States. The Alaska Supreme Court’s pre-election decision has been eclipsed by both the election itself and Miller’s subsequent litigation to contest which write-in ballots should be counted.11 But the issues presented by the litigation will certainly come up again, perhaps now more than ever with the surge in third-party activism.12 This essay considers four questions raised by the early election litigation: First, how should courts read statutes regarding assistance to voters, especially when those statutes seem to clash with regulations promulgated by the election division itself? Second, what type of assistance should poll workers be allowed to give to voters who wish to vote for a write-in 6. See State, Div. of Elections v. Alaska Democratic Party, No. S-14054, slip op. at 4–5 (Alaska Oct. 29, 2010) (per curium). 7. Erika Bolstad, Parties Dispute Use of Election Write-In List, ANCHORAGE DAILY NEWS, Oct. 26, 2010, http://www.adn.com/2010/10/25/v-printer/ 1518500/parties-dispute-use-of-a-write.html. 8. Alaska Democratic Party v. Fenumiai, No. 3AN-10-11621CI (Alaska Sup. Ct. Oct. 27, 2010). 9. Id. 10. Alaska Democratic Party, No. S-14054, at 5–6. 11. Jill Burke, Election Staff ‘Changed the Rules,’ Miller Now Argues, ALASKA DISPATCH, Nov. 19, 2010, http://alaskadispatch.com/blogs/political- animal/7576-election-staff-changed-the-rules-miller-now-argues; Richard L. Hasen, Alaska’s Big Spelling Test: How Strong is Joe Miller’s Argument Against the Leeza Markovsky Vote?, SLATE, Nov. 11, 2010, http://www.slate.com/ id/2274556/. 12. See, e.g., Ben McGrath, Bloomberg, 2012?, THE NEW YORKER, Nov. 15, 2010, at 32 (quoting Democratic consultant Joe Trippi as putting the odds of an independent candidacy for President in 2012 or 2016 at “probably sixty to seventy percent”). FLANDERS_FINAL_2 5/6/2011 2:28:53 PM 4 ALASKA LAW REVIEW [28:1 candidate? When does voter assistance go too far, and constitute undue influence over the voter? Third, to what extent can a state legitimately disadvantage a write-in candidate who has won neither party’s primary? Can a state, for reasons of either principle or expediency, make it harder for voters to write in the names of candidates? Fourth, how should decisions regarding assistance to voters before they vote affect how votes are counted after the election? If voters were able to seek help in spelling a candidate’s name on a write-in ballot, does that mean that ballots that spell the name incorrectly should not be counted? In State, Division of Elections v. Alaska Democratic Party,13 the Alaska Supreme Court was required to answer, or at least hint at answers, to each of these questions, save the last, which was the subject of the post- election litigation.14 Generally, I agree with the court’s answers. Still, the supreme court’s opinion and oral arguments came under time pressure and the need to render a decision quickly so that the election could proceed. This essay attempts to clarify the arguments on both sides of each question and to justify more fully the supreme court’s decision. I. BACKGROUND The facts leading up to the supreme court’s decision should be vaguely familiar to those who followed the 2010 elections. Joe Miller, a veteran of Operation Desert Storm who graduated from West Point and Yale Law School, won a surprising upset over Senator Lisa Murkowski in the Republican primary, thanks in part to backing by the Tea Party and the support of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.15 His opponent, Senator Lisa Murkowski, conceded and appeared willing to accept the primary voters’ verdict that she should not be a candidate in the general election.16 A few days later, she changed course—based, she said, on the 13.No.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Memorandum of Decision; Alaska Republican Party, Et Al. V. Alaska
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA DAVID THOMPSON; AARON DOWNING; JIM CRAWFORD; and DISTRICT 18 of the ALASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY, Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:15-cv-00218-TMB vs. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION PAUL DAUPHINAIS, in His Official Capacity as the Executive Director of the Alaska Public Offices Commission; and MARK FISH, IRENE CATALONE, RON KING, KENNETH KIRK, and VANCE SANDERS, in Their Official Capacities as Members of the Alaska Public Offices Commission, Defendants. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs David Thompson, Aaron Downing, Jim Crawford, and District 18 of the Alaska Republican Party (“District 18”) bring this lawsuit against Defendants Paul Dauphinais, Mark Fish, Irene Catalone, Ron King, Kenneth Kirk, and Vance Sanders (collectively, “Defendants” or “the State”) to challenge the constitutionality of four provisions of Alaska’s campaign finance laws under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.1 The Court called this matter for bench trial on April 25, 2016. The parties concluded their arguments and presentations of evidence on May 1 Dkt. 1 (Compl.); Dkt. 46 (First Am. Compl.). 1 Case 3:15-cv-00218-TMB Document 148 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 26 3, 2016,2 and subsequently submitted post-trial briefs.3 Having carefully considered the pleadings, exhibits, trial testimony, arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.4 II. BACKGROUND In 1996, the Alaska Legislature enacted Chapter 48 SLA 1996 for the purpose of “substantially revis[ing] Alaska’s campaign
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Election Commission 1 2 First General Counsel's
    MUR759900019 1 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 2 3 FIRST GENERAL COUNSEL’S REPORT 4 5 MUR 7304 6 DATE COMPLAINT FILED: December 15, 2017 7 DATE OF NOTIFICATIONS: December 21, 2017 8 DATE LAST RESPONSE RECEIVED September 4, 2018 9 DATE ACTIVATED: May 3, 2018 10 11 EARLIEST SOL: September 10, 2020 12 LATEST SOL: December 31, 2021 13 ELECTION CYCLE: 2016 14 15 COMPLAINANT: Committee to Defend the President 16 17 RESPONDENTS: Hillary Victory Fund and Elizabeth Jones in her official capacity as 18 treasurer 19 Hillary Rodham Clinton 20 Hillary for America and Elizabeth Jones in her official capacity as 21 treasurer 22 DNC Services Corporation/Democratic National Committee and 23 William Q. Derrough in his official capacity as treasurer 24 Alaska Democratic Party and Carolyn Covington in her official 25 capacity as treasurer 26 Democratic Party of Arkansas and Dawne Vandiver in her official 27 capacity as treasurer 28 Colorado Democratic Party and Rita Simas in her official capacity 29 as treasurer 30 Democratic State Committee (Delaware) and Helene Keeley in her 31 official capacity as treasurer 32 Democratic Executive Committee of Florida and Francesca Menes 33 in her official capacity as treasurer 34 Georgia Federal Elections Committee and Kip Carr in his official 35 capacity as treasurer 36 Idaho State Democratic Party and Leroy Hayes in his official 37 capacity as treasurer 38 Indiana Democratic Congressional Victory Committee and Henry 39 Fernandez in his official capacity as treasurer 40 Iowa Democratic Party and Ken Sagar in his official capacity as 41 treasurer 42 Kansas Democratic Party and Bill Hutton in his official capacity as 43 treasurer 44 Kentucky State Democratic Central Executive Committee and M.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaskan Election Law in 2020
    37.2 KEYNOTE ADDRESS (DO NOT DELETE) 2/21/2021 6:45 PM KEYNOTE ADDRESS ALASKAN ELECTION LAW IN 2020 ERWIN CHEMERINSKY* As we face the momentous 2020 elections, this is an incredibly timely moment to be discussing election law in general and Alaska election law in particular. In my talk this morning, I will focus on three questions. First, what is the approach of the United States Supreme Court this year towards election law issues? Second, what historically was the approach to Alaska election issues? And third, what are some of the most important current issues with regard to Alaska election law? On the first question, it is important to discuss election law in the context of this moment in the midst of a 2020 national election—an election unlike any other in our history. There is clearly a political context to this question. Let me try to state it as fairly as I can in terms of the competing world view positions. The competing positions have never been as sharply drawn. The Republican position is that voter fraud is a major problem in the United States and that absentee ballots risk great voter fraud. Politically, Republicans perceive fewer absentee ballots being cast to be to their party’s benefit. They see absentee ballots as much more likely to favor Democrats than Republicans. So, in litigation going on all over the country, Republicans are trying to limit the ability of people to cast absentee ballots and limit the time period within which those ballots must be received in order to be counted.
    [Show full text]
  • A Resolution to Honor the “Saint of the Republican Party” Myrna Maynard
    A Resolution to Honor the “Saint of the Republican Party” Myrna Maynard Whereas, after her arrival in Alaska in 1961 from Johannesburg, South Africa, Myrna took up community volunteerism in addition to raising her family. Through those efforts, she found her calling in Alaska politics. She volunteered for her first campaign in 1968 for Senator Ted Stevens. This calling and the desire to vote, lead her to become a United States citizen in 1985. Whereas, Myrna spent countless hours working with Republican candidates, offering praise and rebuke as needed. She was so well known for her outstanding positions that she received a proclamation from Mayor Knowles regarding her "verbal vigilance" on her 50th birthday. Whereas, her firm stance and no-nonsense approach made her the ideal person to take up the responsibilities of “Gatekeeper” for both Senate President Drue Pearce and House Speaker Gail Phillips. If you wanted to see her charge, you made an appointment and you arrived on time. This policy applied to everyone, family and friends included. Whereas, “Mean Myrna” was not just her email address, it was her armor against the foolhardy. Her wit and wisdom were freely given as was her praise; but, do something she did not agree with and you would find yourself on the other side of “Mean Myrna”. This is not an experience you would repeat. Whereas, after her time as Legislative Aide and Gatekeeper, Myrna devoted her time and energy to many republican candidates as their Treasurer and guru of all things APOC and FEC. She devoted her time hand-entering thousands of records of donations for individual candidates, oftentimes with her beloved husband, Ken, helping at her side.
    [Show full text]
  • State V. Alaska Democratic Party
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA State of Alaska, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Supreme Court No. S-16875 ) Alaska Democratic Party, ) ) Appellee. ) ~~~~~~~~~-) Case No.: 1JU-17-00563CI APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT JUNEAU THE HONORABLE PHILIP M. PALLENBERG, JUDGE APPELLANT'S EXCERPT OF RECORD VOLUME 1OF1 JAHNA LINDEMUTH ATTORNEY GENERAL c._______.,·-~~ or · ·Laur Fox ( 05015) 1J As;S' stant Attorney General Department of Law L.. -_/- 1031 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99501 (907) 269-5100 Filed in the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska on December , 2017 MARILYN MAY, CLERK Appellate Courts By: Deputy Clerk TABLE OF CONTENTS Alaska Democratic Party, Party Plan of Organization, Adopted May 15, 2016 ..................................... ... ................................................. 001 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief, February 22, 2017 ............ ........ ...... ........... ........... ............ .. .... ............................... 037 Alaska Democratic Party's Motion for Summary Judgment, June 19, 2017 ......... ... ....... .. ..................................................................... .......... .... 043 State of Alaska's Motion for Summary Judgment, June 19, 2017 .............................. .. ...... ............... .. .......... ...... .......... .. ......... .... ..... ... 058 Affidavit of Josephine Bahnke, June 19, 2017 ... ............. ........................................................................................ 095
    [Show full text]
  • 3 Candidates Battle to Challenge Sullivan 'It Was A
    One dollar and fifty cents SUNDAY, AUGUST 9, 2020 newsminer.com HISTORIC POINT TRUMP SIGNS RIFLE GAINS PUPPY SIGHS HOPE PHOTOS VIRUS RELIEF NEW COACH GROOMING SUNDAYS » D1 NATION » A6 SPORTS » B1 BUSINESS » C1 T HE VOICE OF INTERIOR ALASKA Inside Today See the 2020 election guide inside today’s edition. 2020 ELECTION 3 candidates battle to challenge Sullivan Daily News-Miner coverage of congressional and ocratic candidates. They are unaffiliated fisherman and orthope- I go, people tell me they are sick of the legislative candidates appearing on the Aug. but are participating in the Democrat- dic boasts a moderate hyper-partisan politics in Washington 18 statewide primary election ballot continues ic primary as allowed by the party. The and logical approach to – politics being championed by Mitch today. The News-Miner’s 2020 primary election Alaska Republican Party does not per- Alaska’s unique political McConnell and our own Senator Dan guide, which features candidate Q&As, is mit the same practice. landscape. Sullivan, who has voted the party line included in today’s edition. See coverage online Sullivan is unopposed in the Republi- His website and mul- 97% of the time.” at newsminer.com can primary and will face whoever wins tiple campaign commer- Areas of focus outlined by the candi- the Democratic primary in November cials sell him as a man Gross date shine a spotlight on health care, By Erin McGroarty as well as Alaskan Independence Par- who will avoid adhering noting he is supports legalized abortion [email protected] ty candidate John Howe, who is unop- to the party line, something Gross notes and will fight against attacks on repro- posed in his party’s primary.
    [Show full text]
  • [J-1-2018] in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Middle District
    [J-1-2018] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF : No. 159 MM 2017 PENNSYLVANIA, CARMEN FEBO SAN : MIGUEL, JAMES SOLOMON, JOHN : On the Recommended Findings of Fact GREINER, JOHN CAPOWSKI, : and Conclusions of Law of the GRETCHEN BRANDT, THOMAS : Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania RENTSCHLER, MARY ELIZABETH : entered on 12/29/18 at No. 261 MD LAWN, LISA ISAACS, DON LANCASTER, : 2017 JORDI COMAS, ROBERT SMITH, : WILLIAM MARX, RICHARD MANTELL, : ARGUED: January 17, 2018 PRISCILLA MCNULTY, THOMAS : ULRICH, ROBERT MCKINSTRY, MARK : LICHTY, LORRAINE PETROSKY, : : Petitioners : : : v. : : : THE COMMONWEALTH OF : PENNSYLVANIA; THE PENNSYLVANIA : GENERAL ASSEMBLY; THOMAS W. : WOLF, IN HIS CAPACITY AS : GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA; : MICHAEL J. STACK III, IN HIS CAPACITY : AS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF : PENNSYLVANIA AND PRESIDENT OF : THE PENNSYLVANIA SENATE; : MICHAEL C. TURZAI, IN HIS CAPACITY : AS SPEAKER OF THE PENNSYLVANIA : HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; : JOSEPH B. SCARNATI III, IN HIS : CAPACITY AS PENNSYLVANIA SENATE : PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE; ROBERT : TORRES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ACTING : SECRETARY OF THE : COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; : JONATHAN M. MARKS, IN HIS : CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE : BUREAU OF COMMISSIONS, : ELECTIONS, AND LEGISLATION OF : THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF : STATE, : : Respondents : OPINION JUSTICE TODD FILED: February 7, 2018 It is a core principle of our republican form of government “that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.”1 In this case, Petitioners allege that the Pennsylvania Congressional Redistricting Act of 20112 (the “2011 Plan”) does the latter, infringing upon that most central of democratic rights – the right to vote.
    [Show full text]
  • FEDERAL ELECTIONS 2018: Election Results for the U.S. Senate and The
    FEDERAL ELECTIONS 2018 Election Results for the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives Federal Election Commission Washington, D.C. October 2019 Commissioners Ellen L. Weintraub, Chair Caroline C. Hunter, Vice Chair Steven T. Walther (Vacant) (Vacant) (Vacant) Statutory Officers Alec Palmer, Staff Director Lisa J. Stevenson, Acting General Counsel Christopher Skinner, Inspector General Compiled by: Federal Election Commission Public Disclosure and Media Relations Division Office of Communications 1050 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20463 800/424-9530 202/694-1120 Editors: Eileen J. Leamon, Deputy Assistant Staff Director for Disclosure Jason Bucelato, Senior Public Affairs Specialist Map Design: James Landon Jones, Multimedia Specialist TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Preface 1 Explanatory Notes 2 I. 2018 Election Results: Tables and Maps A. Summary Tables Table: 2018 General Election Votes Cast for U.S. Senate and House 5 Table: 2018 General Election Votes Cast by Party 6 Table: 2018 Primary and General Election Votes Cast for U.S. Congress 7 Table: 2018 Votes Cast for the U.S. Senate by Party 8 Table: 2018 Votes Cast for the U.S. House of Representatives by Party 9 B. Maps United States Congress Map: 2018 U.S. Senate Campaigns 11 Map: 2018 U.S. Senate Victors by Party 12 Map: 2018 U.S. Senate Victors by Popular Vote 13 Map: U.S. Senate Breakdown by Party after the 2018 General Election 14 Map: U.S. House Delegations by Party after the 2018 General Election 15 Map: U.S. House Delegations: States in Which All 2018 Incumbents Sought and Won Re-Election 16 II.
    [Show full text]
  • F* / I / 7Flflll HPT Ior* • , ^ Federal Election Commission M ., K
    Brooks^^ |-u:.c-: ..,. •HUH FEOEKA'LLU criON »rag«>AkW^Ui27 COMiJSSl'OM October 3,2004 General Counsel /- f* / I / 7flflll HPT i o r* • , ^ Federal Election Commission m _ ., K ^> W+" ™ OCT 12 P |: U3 999EStreet MUR#.V ^ V t , Washington DC 20463 Re: Complaint against Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), Tony Knowles, a candidate for me US Senate from Alaska, the Tony Knowles for Senate Committee, Leslie Riddle, Treasurer, and Alaska Democratic Party (ADP), JoeUe Hall, Treasurer Dear Sir: This is a formal complaint to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) concerning the above-named entities. This complaint will demonstrate that the DSCC and the ADP have, and are continuing to make, illegal in-kind donations to the Knowles campaign and are making illegal coordinated communications to benefit the Knowles for Senate Committee. The Knowles committee is violating the law by accepting those in-kind donations and illegal coordinated communications. Since January 1,2003 the DSCC has donated $ 1,700,000 to the ADP. (Exhibit A) The ADP has used that money to open campaign offices across Alaska. They have opened offices in 12 communities including in many communities which have never had a Democratic Party office before. In 2002 when the Democrat Party had a competitive candidate for governor the ADP spent considerably less than they are spending this year and opened far fewer offices. The ADP had only six employees in 2002 and by early August 2002 had received a total of $60,356. This year its FEC reports show the ADP is paying payroll of at least 104 different people including Jim Messina, who was reported in the press to be Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of the Digital Political Advertising Network
    PLATFORMS AND OUTSIDERS IN PARTY NETWORKS: THE EVOLUTION OF THE DIGITAL POLITICAL ADVERTISING NETWORK Bridget Barrett A thesis submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts at the Hussman School of Journalism and Media. Chapel Hill 2020 Approved by: Daniel Kreiss Adam Saffer Adam Sheingate © 2020 Bridget Barrett ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Bridget Barrett: Platforms and Outsiders in Party Networks: The Evolution of the Digital Political Advertising Network (Under the direction of Daniel Kreiss) Scholars seldom examine the companies that campaigns hire to run digital advertising. This thesis presents the first network analysis of relationships between federal political committees (n = 2,077) and the companies they hired for electoral digital political advertising services (n = 1,034) across 13 years (2003–2016) and three election cycles (2008, 2012, and 2016). The network expanded from 333 nodes in 2008 to 2,202 nodes in 2016. In 2012 and 2016, Facebook and Google had the highest normalized betweenness centrality (.34 and .27 in 2012 and .55 and .24 in 2016 respectively). Given their positions in the network, Facebook and Google should be considered consequential members of party networks. Of advertising agencies hired in the 2016 electoral cycle, 23% had no declared political specialization and were hired disproportionately by non-incumbents. The thesis argues their motivations may not be as well-aligned with party goals as those of established political professionals. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES .................................................................................................................... V POLITICAL CONSULTING AND PARTY NETWORKS ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska's Citizens Lock out Private Prisons
    ALASKA’S CITIZENS LOCK OUT PRIVATE PRISONS PU BLI C OPI NION BLOCKS PRIVA TI ZA TION ATTEMPTS By LINDA CA SEY November 6, 2008 NATIO NA L IN STI TU TE O N MONEY I N STA TE PO LITI CS This publication was made possible with support from: Carnegie Corporation of New York, Strengthening U.S. Democracy Ford Foundation, Governance Performance and Accountability The Pew Charitable Trusts, State Policy Initiatives Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Program on Democratic Practice 833 NORTH LAST CHANCE GULCH, SECOND FLOOR • HELENA, MT • 59601 PHONE 406-449-2480 • FAX 406-457-2091 • E-MAIL [email protected] www.followthemoney.org OVERVIEW Since the mid-1990s — through six legislative sessions and three gubernatorial administrations — Alaska’s lawmakers have made more than a half dozen attempts to privatize prisons. These attempts have met with unfavorable public opinion. To date, the strength of public opposition has prevailed, and all private prison proposals have been defeated. But the state needs prison beds, and a lack of them means that state prisoners are being sent to other states.1 In 2004, the issue was addressed with the passage of Senate Bill 65, which authorized construction of a 1,500-bed prison in Matanuska-Susitna Borough. But it is not a private prison. Construction began in August 2008, but none of the design or construction of the facility is being performed by the private-prison interests that have been involved in the push for privatization of prisons since the early 1990s. Instead the facility’s construction will be controlled by the Mat-Su Borough and operated by the state of Alaska.2 BACKGROUND Starting in the 1990s, five donors formed a variety of partnerships in an effort to promote the private prison idea in Alaska: .
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Democratic Party Final Proposed Platform
    4 2020 DEMOCRATIC PARTY FINAL PROPOSED PLATFORM Platform Committee Approved – Final May 12, 2020 1 Table of Contents PREAMBLE ........................................................................................................................ 4 PART ONE - PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNANCE .............................................................. 4 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. ................................................................................................. 4 PRIVACY. .......................................................................................................................... 4 ACCOUNTABLE LEADERSHIP. ............................................................................................. 5 CONFLICT OF INTEREST. .................................................................................................... 5 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. ......................................................................................... 5 PART TWO - SUFFRAGE AND ELECTIONS .................................................................. 5 VOTING PROCESS. ............................................................................................................ 5 MAIL IN VOTING. ................................................................................................................ 6 VOTING RIGHTS................................................................................................................. 6 DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF U.S. CITIZENS SERVING TIME IN PRISON. .................................. 6 BALLOTS.
    [Show full text]